The Adoption of the Eighth Amendment in the United States Constitution - Essay Example

Cruel and Unusual Punishment
There have been two main aspects of consideration by the courts in defining such punishments; these are the amount of punishment and the method of punishment. The courts rely on the evolving standards of decency when considering the method of punishment. On the other hand, in considering the method of punishment the courts use the proportionality rule (Prison Conditions and the Deliberate Indifference Standards the Eighth Amendment, 2011).

Over the years, there has been an extension of the Eighth Amendment to cover the conditions of the inmates’ confinement. However, the onus pressed the petitioner to prove that the officials were ‘deliberately indifferent. Louisiana ex rel. Francis v Resweber 329 U.S 459 (1947) this case held that the petitioner had to show reasonable intent on the part of the officer administering the punishment. Gregg v. Georgia 428 U.S 153 (1976) established the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ standard. The consideration is whether the unnecessary pain inflicted was to serve as punishment and its proportionality to the crime committed. ‘Obduracy and wantonness’ was a key requirement in this standard.
The Rhodes v. Chapman case caused the further development of the Gregg standard in 1981, which expanded the scope of the Eighth Amendment to include prison conditions. In Rhodes v. Chapman (452 U.S. 337, 1981) it held that prisoners being housed in double cells is not in contravention of the Eighth Amendment. The Courts were of the opinion that the Constitution does provide for the provision of comfortable prisons, and deprivation of life’s necessities is in violation of the Constitution. However, to double-cell, an inmate with a chain smoker is unconstitutional, as was held in Helling v. McKinney (509 U.S. 25, 1993). The Courts held that a Nevada inmate, double celled with a chain smoker, had a right to seek court action. This is because the situation exposed him to some health hazards that he could incur as a passive smoker. However, the courts subsequently offered a more lenient standard for the prisoners; this standard is familiar as the deliberate indifference standard (Eighth Amendment and Deliberate Indifference Standard for Prisoners, 2013).

Deliberate Indifference Standard
Estelle v. gamble 429, U.S 97 (1976), was the first case in which the courts discussed this standard. Generally, deliberate indifference seems to people as the blatant but conscious disregard of a person’s consequences in relation to his actions or omissions. Negligence on the part of the officials is not a requirement. The court uses it in determining whether an officer has in one way or the other contravened the civil rights of an inmate. The first attempt by the courts to define this standard was made in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).

The test has three parts: the first requirement is a substantial or excessive risk of injury to the inmate. This requirement is heavily dependent on the facts of the case presented in court. An example of such a case is Willis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074 (9th Cor. 1995), where the courts ruled that exposure to asbestos in a prison constituted a substantial risk of harm. The second requirement is actual knowledge of the risk by the official. The obviousness of the surrounding circumstances may be useful for proving knowledge. The official should either be aware or be capable to foresee the occurrence of the harm. The final requirement is a conscious disregard of the harm. The courts consider whether the official was in a position to prevent the harm but disregarded it. The standard is important as it helps the courts in deciding liability in such cases. Therefore, it is a very appropriate standard.

In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court decided that deliberate indifference by the officials was essential for unpleasant prison conditions and poor medical care to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The principle of the Wilson v. Seiter case (501 U.S. 294, 1991) held that prisoners who claimed that their confinement conditions constituted cruel and unusual punishment required to establish deliberate indifference on the part of prison authorities (Eighth Amendment and Deliberate Indifference Standard for Prisoners, 2013).